ML22230A087
| ML22230A087 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Issue date: | 02/08/1978 |
| From: | NRC/OCM |
| To: | |
| References | |
| Tran-M780208 | |
| Download: ML22230A087 (40) | |
Text
,
I
(
RETURN 10 SECRHJ\\R\\J\\i RECORDS.
~
DISCLAIMER This is an unofficial transcript a meet*ng of t,b United States Nuclear Regulatory Cammi ss ion held on ____]!!~a,c::_:::.t._('.}__/.-/--l-1-.!6:::!_ __ in the Commission's offices at 1717 H Street, N. W., Wahington, 0. C.
The meeting was open to public attendance and observation.
This transcript has not been reviewed, corrected, or edited, and it may contain inaccuracies.
The transcript is intended solely for general informational purposes.
As provided by 10 CFR 9. 103, it is not part of the formal or informal record of decision of the matters discussed.
Expressions of opinion in this transcript do not necessarily reflect fi na 1 determi nati ans or beliefs.
No pleading or othe r paper may be filed with the Commissi on in any proceeding as the result of or addressed to any stater".ent or arg'..1ment contained herein, except as the Commission may authorize.
NUCLE.AR-REGULATORY COMMISSION.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Public Meeting SECY-78-52 RESPONSE TO MOTION BY STATES OF NEW YORK, WISCONSIN AND OHIO REGARDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE IN THE S-3 RULEMAKING PROCEEDING Place -
Date -
Washington, D. C.
Wednesday, 8. February 1978 ACE - FEDERAL REPORTERS, INC.
Official Reponers 444 North Capitol Street Washington, D.C. 2000 l NATIONWIDE COVERAGE* DAILY Pages 1 -
38 Telephone:
(202) 347-3700
MELTZER /mm CR6338 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 UNITED STATES OF.AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Public Meeting SECY-78-52 1
RESPONSE TO MOTION BY STATES OF.NEW YORK, WISCONSIN AND OHIO REGARDING ECONOMIC IMPACTS or THE URANIUM FUEL CYCLE IN THE S-3 RULEMAKING PROCEEDING BEFORE:
Room 1130 1717 H Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C.
Wednesday, February 8, 1978 The Commission met, pursuant to notice, at 3:55 p.m.
DR. JOSEPH M. HENDRIE, Chairman RICHARDT. KENNEDY, Commissioner VICTOR GILINSKY, ComIIlissioner PETER A. BRADFORD, Commissioner ALSO PRESENT:
L. SLAGGIE
- s. EILPERIN J. MURRAY
- w. DIRCKS H. LOWENBERG K. PEDERSEN
- s. CHILK F. MIRAGLIA
rnm2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
' Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 2
P R O C E E D I N G S CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
We gather now on the subject of Response to Motion by States of New York, Wisconsin, and Ohio.Regarding Economic Impacts of the Uranium Fuel Cycle in the S-3 Rulemaking Proceeding.
We have a paper before the Commission from the General Counsel's Office, and I seemed to have signed some sort of a concurrence sheet, but the fact that.we are here suggests that not all of us did.
Leo, are you going to take the lead on it?.
Why don't you go and give us a two-minute outline of what_it is and where we are?
MR.SLAGGIE:
Right.
Well, I thought I would give a little bit of historical rundown on how the economic impact got into this proceeding so we can perceive the context from which this motion arises.
Back in October, when all the participants in S-3 submitted written testimony pursuant to the Hearing Board's schedule, New York submitted a 40-page statement by Peter Skinner on the Economic Costs of the Fuel Cycle.
And Ohio and Wisconsin submitted about a 15-page statement by Professor Irwin Bupp regarding the Cost Estimates per Kilowatt Hour for the Fuel*-Cycle iri Nuclear Power.
Following this, later in October, Wisconsin submitte
rnm3 cec1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 certain questions to other participants regarding economic costs.
At that point these participants objected to some of the questions on the grounds that they were outside the 3
scope of the proceeding, ~d outside the scope of the participan s' testimony.
The Hearing Board sustained the objections to many of these questions, and on December 6th, Wisconsin came back and objected to what.the Hearing Board had done.
They stressed the need for this proceeding to consider economic impacts,and they asked the Hearing Board to clarify what the scope of the proceeding was insofar as economic impacts are concerned.
The Hearing Board did that in a memorandum on December 18. They interpreted what Wisconsin was asking for as a request for a cost-benefit analysis in this proceeding itself.
And on that basis they said _that the Board would continue to exclude the questions:that Wisconsin was asking.
At the same time the Hearing Board did find that the question of economic feasibility was a matter within the scope of the hearings. And, by economic feasibility what the Board was referring to was the -- well, exactly that -- the economic feasibility of the models on which the numbers in Table S-3 are based.
So the Board directed the Staff to provide "a limited amount of cost data to test the economic feasibility
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 4
of these models on which the numbers on Table S-3 are based."
The. Staff complied. They said they could have this data, I believe, abo_ut the last week in January.
MR. MURRAY: We have already filed it.
MR. SLAGGIE: They have already* provided that~*.
That data has been provided.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I presume that testing economic feasibility here.is in the sense that if one of the models for dealing with thesl?,prohlems.,:p:i:::oposed, would in any practical application, h_~ve a __ cost of, let's assume something splendid,.
$10 billion per metric ton of waste; all reasonable. In fact, even the meanest intellect would agree that it was hardly feasible in any practical sense.
And that is fue way in which you --
MR. SLAGGIE:
- And the numbers should not be based on that kind of knowledge.
In that sense, I think I would interpret it.
But the Hearing Board also repeated themselves a little bit in.~a..., memorandum of January 6th, and they stressed that the Board had not excluded in any way the testimony of written testimo*ny of Bupp and Skinner, that I mentioned had been submitted earlier by the States of New York and Wisconsin.
The Board made th~_cle~r, that that was not excltided Never*theless, when the motion came in from the State of New York,.the motions we are considering now, they
mm5 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 5
asked the Commission to do three things:
The first of these things, they asked the Commission to direct the Hearing Board to place on record certain testimon regarding economic costs of the fuel cycle, which apparently the *state.. believed was still excluded.
They asked the Commission to direct the Hearing~
Board to require an answer to the written questions to which the Hearing Board had previously sustained objections.
And third, they asked the Commission to direct the Hearing :£oard to develop~a record in this proceeding, which would include the economic costs of the fuel cycle for the purposes of amending Table S-3 to include ec,onomic *impacts.
So those are the three things as we understand it, that this motion is asking the Commission :~to do.
We have received several responses to*... the motion.
Two of these came in earlier from Commonwealth Edison and Tennesse.e Valley Authority, which urged that the Commission deny the
- States' s motion.*-* But they went beyond that. They also moved that the Commission reverse the Hearing Board's decision to take data on ec6nomic feasibility, and has been urging this these motions, citing the Vermont Yankee decision which they interpret as -approving the front end impact in Table S-3.
They noted that Tabl~~S-3 didn't include economic.,impacts* and they interpreted the.B'o*a~.d' s action as approving a *table*wi'thout economic impact.
rrn:n6 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 6
The NRC Staff urged* denial of the State's motion, if I understand that correctly.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: No part of the S-3 table considers economic impacts, is that right?
MR. EILPERIN:
That's correct.
Table S-3 itself does not consider economic impacts.
impacts.
MR. SLAGGIE: No, it does not consider economic The States contend that it should be amended.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I want to be sure. it was not meant to, because --
MR. EILPERIN:
Because economic impacts are handled in individual licenses.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Exactly.
MR. SLAGGIE:
Okay.
Well, the Staff, as far as I know, has not objected to this consideration of economic feasibility, so they urge that the STate's motion be denied.
.The draft response which OGC has prepared, our recommended response to the Commission on this matter,* notes the confusion which presently exists regarding the difference, how far the Hearing Board and the States actually differ.
Point 1, the Hearing Board has not excluded any testimony so far.* It is unclear what the States have*in mind when they.. dire*ct. the Com:ritission to have -- ask the Commission to direct the Hearing Board to include testimony.
mm 2
3 7
Now they do want the Hearing Board to include testimony, they say, for the purposes of amending Table S-3.
But in my view, this somewhat misconstrues what the Hearing 4
Board is doing.
5 The Hearing Board has compiled a record. The 6
purpose,** what that record is used for, is up to the Commission 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 So, once the testimony is on the record, it is there for you to do what you want with it.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
What was the specific charge in this regard to*the Hearing Board?
MR. SLAGGIE: The specific charge?
You mean from the Commission to the Hearing Board? It was.. merely to develop a record concerning the environmental impact of waste manage-ment and fuel reprocessing.
So, to the extent that those environmental impacts would ~-"" exactly what that includes, is a matter which is open to some discussion.
The Commission did not direct the Board not to, include economic impacts.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: But, if the Table -- if the purpose of the exercise from. its inception was to put in place an interim Table 3 or -- thi.s is the final Table 3, it is the final Table 3 put in place a final Table 3, and Table 3, S-3 never did include cost estimates or economic feasibility questions.. --
,Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
MR. SLAGGIE:
The State's.answer to that argument 25
mm8 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 8
is that the Commission's direction also says that the purpose of these proceedings was to consider whether the Interim Rule Table was adequate as it was, or whether it needed alteration.
MR. EILPERIN:
We are not recommending that Table S-3 or the proceeding, the scope of the proceeding be
, :changed to includee:::onomics, to have the table amended to include economic impacts.
At this point,.in view of the seeming confusion of what is involved, where *the States seem to be asking for portions of relief which they have already gotten, we just think that a further clarification from the Hearing Board is in order, and at that point the Commission --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Or, is it important to get clarification from the Commission?
Perhaps -- is the Hearing Board is there any evidence that the Hearing Board is at this point moving beyond what it was expected in the first instance to do?
MR. EILPERIN: No, I don't think there is.
MR. SLAGGIE:
The Hearing Board has specified that the economic data is to be a limited cost data related to this question of economic feasibility.
Now as I read that, that implies to me that*;the Board definitely has limitations in mind. They* are not going th whole way_.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: Is, this because we are not:-.
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 9
dealing here with an environmental statement, but an assessment?
MR. EILPERIN: No.
It is just that the economic impacts are handled, right now, in individual licensing proceedings. The generic rule can encompass whatever the Commission wants it to encompass.
But that means what is not included in the rule, which also must be taken into account in the NEPA statement, must be handled in a different fashion here in the individual licensing proceeding.
And the reason I don't think the Hearing Board ~s
. going off base, is what Leo We£ referring to earlier -- maybe Jim also wants to comment on this -- that economic feasibility, which is all they have asked, is relevant to the environmental values of the table.
In other words, you have to have*some feeling that the models are in fact practical, so that the value which are based on those models, have some relationship to reality.
And that, as I understand it, is the extent of the inquiry which the Hearing Board has thus far directed. And I think that is a proper subject of inquiry. It again limits the S-3 inquiry to the environmental values which have a limited economic feasibility testimony on that, just to verify that those environmental values are realistic.
MR. MURRAY: That is precisely my understanding.
I would add, however, that the reason that economics are not
mm l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 required to be considered in this table is that this is a
- survey, not an Environmental Impact Statement.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
A survey, right.
MR. MURRAY:
Yes.
MR. EILPERIN:
The DC Circuit has said that we have to consider the impacts of the fuel cycle either in a generic proceeding or a licensing proceeding.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: So in other words, th~
10 economic impacts of the fuel cycle are handled separately in each proceeding?
MR. EILPERIN: That's right.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY: On an individual basis?
MR. EILPERIN: That's right.
There is a Regulatory Guide which explains the information the Applicant is supposed to put in.
I think one question, later, which the Commissioner might want to consider, is whether or not that sort of situation should continue, or whether the economic force is handled generically. But we are not now suggesting that it be handled generically.
But, one, we are not now $Uggesting be handled generically; and two, we are not suggesting by any means that it should be folded into the S-3 proceeding, and the S-3 proceeding be expanded to encompass something else.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: This proceeding
mmll 11 MR. EILPERIN:
That's right.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-"".' is simply a narrowly-fbcuse 3
one to respond to specific.-:.e_njoinders by the Court
- 4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 MR. EILPERIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
And we are not trying to go beyond that.
We will.simply respond to the Court's instruction.
MR. EILPERIN:
That's right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Is that correct?
MR. EILPERIN:
That's right.
COMMISS]JONER:.KENNEDY:
Now, if we wish to go into the question of economic feasibility or economic costs on a generic a hearing context.
- basis, of its that
- own, should be the subject, it seems to me, of a proceeding of its own in a rulemaking MR. SLAGGIE: That is a perfectly reasonable position and one that is certainly in accord with the law.
As far as the economic feasibility goes, I would want to stress that it is our view that that question is properly in this proceeding limited to the scope of feasibility and not going on into detailed cost estimates.
Now the actual draft response that we have proposed
- here doesn't reallygo*as far as what we have been saying. All*
22 23 24 this would do is to affirm the Hearing Board's consideration of econom,4"c feasibility and defer any comment or response* on I.
Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
the State's specific-motion, pending what we hope will be some 25
12 mm clarification. of this issue later.
2 COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: F..rom what you have told me, 3
why don't we just respond to the State's petitiori now?
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 MR. SLAGGIE: Well, one question that is difficult to respond to is the State's urging that we direct the Hearing Board to have certain questions answered.
The State of New York, and the Hearing, Board, the Ch~irman of the Hearing Board discussed this matter on the opening day of the hearing and that discussion reflected some confusion on both sides as to who was doing what.
And the State of Wisconsin -- the Hearing Board said,.-
we thought we gave you everything you asked for.
The State said, if you gave us everything we asked for, why didn't you direct that our questions be answered?
And the Hearing Board said, well, we'll have another look at those questions. And the Hearing Board is now doing tha among other things, they are-looking at the Staff's economic testim,ony, and they are reconsidering what their reasons were for sustaining objections to these questions.
It would be difficult for the Commission now to intervene in this matter.
But there are a number of questions*
which would, in principle, have to be looked at in detail if we were* to secondguess the Hearing Board on whether they should be in or out.
Ace-Federal Reporters; Inc.
We hope that will be cleared up.
25
rnml3 l 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 13 Also, if there is any question of additional testi-mony, that is something.that the Hearing Board can address.
And I think, finally, that the Hearing Board's order will make plain exactly what they mean by economic feasibility and how far they intend to go with it.
And after that comes out we will be able to draft a more responsive --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Would it be wise for us at this point, before the Hearing Board issues its order in that connection, for us to say somethingj at least, to reaffirm our understanding of the limits of this question of economic feasibility examination?
MR. SLAGGIE:
I would have no strong objection to that.
I have one practical consideration.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY: Could we say that in, for example, our own response to the States, providing at the same time guidance for the Board in this regard?
MR. SLAGGIE: I think we certainly could do that.
In fact, I even had a try at drafting some language.
One difficulty that occurred to me in doing that, is that whatever we say, if we say it in advance of the Hearing Board's order, we make some positive statement about limiting or other-wise affecting the scope of the hearing, it is quite likely that once_ the Hearing Board's order comes out, certain of the participants wil'l say, "Well, the Hearing Board has
rnml4 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 14 misinterpreted what the Commission has done."
And we will get another round of motions having to reinterpret our interpreta-tion and so on.
If we do wait for the Hearing Board's order, we will be in a position to say, yes, this is what we want; or, no, this is not, here is how we want that modified.
And I think we may save some.confusion.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I see.
What you would suggest is letting -- it would just be the other way around. You would let the Hearing Board go ahead on the assumption that it does understand what it is that the Commission had in mind MR. SLAGGIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
-- and is not going to broaden the scope of this activity beyond the relatively limited scope that was contemplated in the first instance.
Only to the extent that it exceeds that and it seems to move out of that context,w::>uld it be necessary then for the Commission* to act. And in such a ca*se the Commission could then issue an order saying, well, that is not exactly what we had in mind.
MR. EILPERIN: That's right.
It seems to us thus far_ this Heating Board under-stands th~ limits of their economic f~asibility inquiry. There is no need at this point for Commission guidance.on it.
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 15 CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We have a motion -- is the S-3 Board set up so that appeals from its decision come here rather than to the Appeals Board?
MR. EILPERIN:
That's correct.
MR. SLAGGIE: The Commission stated they would care-fully monitor the proceeding,and we have interpreted that as a commitment to consider at least timely motions that are relevant to the general purpose of this monitoring.
MR. MURRAY:
The Appeal Board has never been involved in rulemakings, Mr. ClB.irman.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Okay.
So this is typical for the rulemakings. I see.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Can you just give me a little bit of the history?
You said that.the economics left out -- that this was a survey rather than an impact statement.
Nev~rtheless, the actual conclusions that are reached, if they are adopted by the Commission, will be -- those will then constitute the assessments as well, won't they, for purposes of the Environmental Impact Statements in individual proceedings?
MR. MURRAY:
Insofar as the environmental impacts not insofar as the economics are concerned.
The Environmental Impact Statements for individual proceedi~gs, have economics of the fuel cycle in them, separate
mml6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
. 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 16 from Table s-3.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: What then is the dif-ference between a survey and something else?
MR. MURRAY:
Two essential differences:
An Environmental Impact Statement has a cost-benefiti analysis in it, and has alternatives in it.
A survey has neither a cost-benefit analysis; nor alternatives.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But as to the economic impacts of the particular factors considered, the environmental impacts, there is no difference between the survey and the-conclusio~
reached in the individual proceedi~gs?~
MR. MURRAY:
. I'm sorry, I didn't follow that~
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, whatever the values are in the S-3 -- that are eventually adopted in the S-3 table, then get plugged right into Environmental Impact Statements.
MR. MURRAY:
Into the costs in the Environmental Impact Statement, that is correct.
COMMISSIONER.BRADFORD:
.So that the S-3 conclusions are actually quantified in dollars and cents terms?
MR. MURRAY:
.No.
They are strictly environmental terms, not economic terms; curies, acres of land, gallons of watter and so forth.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Now is*:ihat ever translated into dollars and cents terms to come.to a cost-benefit
rnml 7 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 17 conclusion?
MR. MURRAY:
It is not translated as such.
However, in the cost-benefit analysis into which the S-3 numbers are plugged, is also plugged an economic number for the cost of the fuel cycle.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: And that is the number that is determined in the individual proceedings?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, sir..
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: But is it necessarily derived from the numbers that are arrived at in the S-3 proceeding?
MR. EILPERIN: No.
No economic cost is given for 12 curies of such and so.
I mean it is an economic cost in terms of the expense of yellowcake, the cost per kilowatt hour COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
All right.
So where does the economic cost come from?
MR. MURRAY:
From the cost of the fuel*~*
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Not for the back end?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, even for the back end, because the cost of the fuel presumably includes cost of the entire fuel cycle.
MR. EILPERIN:
Here is the guide of the estimat~d costs which the Applicant is supposed to furnish in his Environmental Report, and the utility is supposed to furnish economic data for tnese various aspects of the fuel cycle.
mrnl8 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 18 (Indicating to Commissioner Bradford.)
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, but why did we decide that it was useful to go into the environmental impac-tsin a generic form, but that the related economic impacts should be left to the individual proceedings?
MR. EILPERIN: Well, I can think of one reason off the top of my head. I don't know if it is the reason. But one reason is that economics, I would think, are much more subject to change than are prospective curie doses.
So that each year, each six months you might get new economic figures.
It seems to me that that would be one reason or arguing against the flat-out rule which says the economic cost of uranium fuel cycle is $38 for this aspect, $200 for tha aspect. It just seems to me much more -- an area much more subject to change than trying to figure out prospective --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Let's see, we have got -- Homer has arrived at the table, hopefully with a contribution to make on this subject.
MR. LOWENBERG:
I want to reinforce what Steve said.
The original consideration in working up the environmental survey several years ago specifically did not address economics because of the fact that the marketplace variations in economic were changing very rapidly and we felt it was improper to try to quantify economic~.
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
- 20 21 I
- 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 19 A reactor built one year, purchasing fuel one year, contracting for fuel services one year could be markedly different from one procured and purchased even in the same calendar year, but at a different point in the economic cycle.
So that the economics are extremely variable based on the marketplace conditions.
And it was felt impossible in developing a survey, to come up with any meaningful economic data that w6uld be representative over a period of time.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Would a simple case in point be, for example, the land values which will obviously depend largely on the particular factility -- well, indeed, entirely on the particular facility -- the amount of land tnvolved, and that land which is going to be invol~ed in.the facility and the cost of getting that land there, is that right?
I MR. LOWENBERG: Well, that is one of the factors.
It would be more important to look at, I,think, for instance, the yellowcake costs, or reprocessing costs or enrichment.costs.
They--you know, if a utility contracts in month X for these things, he may get a good deal because some I
I particular reactor vendor has got down time in his shop.
Six months later when that shop is filled with work, 1 the price might be 50 or 100 percent higher for the same identical I
MR. DIRCKS: The other thing that came about when I
I we went through this exercise back in 1973 -- I was 1then at CEQ,
mm l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 and I think we were arguing about, for each new reactor you license,what is the environmental impact all up and,down the line?
Now you can mitigate the impact of the individual I
I 20 reactor by changing-its locationand changing the de?ign.
- But, in individual licensing actions, for example, how big a strip mine would you have, or how much land do you strip for the mine back in, wherever it is.
Then you look at that as ~n individua case.
The S-3 was only to give you an idea of what the incremental impact is of that particular nuclear reactor you I
bring on, and not an attempt to mitigate the impact.of a mill or mine back where the location is.
Now the other way, if you try to factor in costs, I guess you eventually come out with a very large generic thing in the whole fuel cycle, which this S-3 was never meant to be,the whole uranium fuel cycle.
But I think the purpose of the S-3 table is to give you an idea of how to plug numbers into the individual reactor licensing effort, to give you an idea of what you are buying when you are getting another reactor.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well in particular, wli.at you-*are I
bµying in terms of acres of land to be used, tons of mill I
tailings __ that will be out on the ground with some kind of I
cover on it, radon releases, the back end, amounts df wastes
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 21 of spent fuel accumulated and such things.
Then the costs of those may be very time-dependent.
MR. DIRCKS: And location-dependent, too.*
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: And location-dependent.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes, I can see that the costs might be more time-dependent than environmental impact.
I am not sure offhand that they would be more location-dependent.
I think both would vary with location.
MR. DIRCKS: Well, if the reactor isbeing*licensed, it is very difficult to predict over the next 30 years, from which mine or mill you are going to be getting the fuel for tha reactor.
And that will be dependent on the individtjal mills
'J that may come on line for the next 30 or 40 yeasr, and that is when you will start mitigating those impacts.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: That's right.
But I should think those would make the ~nvironmental assessment as unpredictable to some of the same degTiee as it would ~ake the cost assessment unpredictable.
h 1
I f
MR. DIRCKS: Butte environmenta assessment rom the S-3 table is designed to look at the gross impact you are
~etting from the licensing oh additional nuclear reactors.
It I
I is not looking at how you are going to reduce the impact of I
- a. particular strip mine ten yeasr from now.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: I understand that.
Now, does*that mean that we have as the economics
mm 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 22 associated with, say the back end of the fuel cycle, a vastly different set of conclusions from one proceeding to'the next?
MR. DIRCKS: I think-~ in each reactor licensing case?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: Yes.
MR. DIRCKS: I think the numbers then are used, he absolute terms of releases, effluents and so on COMMISSIONER BRADFORD: No, just the econ0mics.
MR. DIRCKS: The economics, I don't think -- no, we don't plug that in. We are plugging in only the impacts.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: What Commissioner Bradford is saying, when you do a licensing case, you take, there are so many acres and so many pounds of yellowcake you are 1 going to I
need, and so many tons of waste, spent fuel that have come out.
And you have got to decide what appropriate costs are for this particular reactor to be operated* in this particular place in this timeframe, okay?
MR. DIRCKS: Right.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Then you_ get a set of economics that go into the cost-benefit.
And he is curious in fact that these accumulated fuel cycle costs -- if I look at a whole series of licensing cases, do these go up and down very substantially, or do they tend to be fairly uniform.
I can see where he is going.
If they tend to be
mm 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
. 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 23 fairly uniform, then maybe there in fact might be a' better basis for a generic economic determination than our' conversatio seemed to indicate.
MR. MURRAY:
It is my understanding that,they do tend to be fairly uniform, they vary only as the cost of fuel varies, because that is where the economic costs are reflected.
MR. MIRAGLIA: The cost-benefit analysis does reflect in the fuel cost, the front end and the back end of the fuel supply.
And in the cost-benefit analysis within a reactor statement, we use a range of costs to sort of bracket what we think are the marketplace variations.
Now the range that we use is fairly wide.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Okay.
So the range doesn't look greatly different from case to case just because it is a wide range.
MR. MIRAGLIA: But the specific fuel cost'for -an individual reactor would have to be judged, is it in that kind of a range. The specific fuel cost that a utility is paying would probably be less than -- well, within the range of the example.
I CHAIRMAN HENDRIE: Well, it seems to me that one might wa~~ to reexamine at some point whether indeed a generic proceeding tu establish some.sort of --
jwb 1 fols mm 23 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 24 CO:MMISSIONER BRADFORD:
You're doing much better than I was.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
-- some sort of general guidelines, at least, with regard to the economic costs of these environmental effects, whether that wouldn't be a reasonable thing to do.
And I think that's a question, you know, that we might want to address at some time.
My own feeling would be, having established the S-3 proceeding in order to repair, in a full and careful way, the S-3 table which the court in Vermont said'was inadequately justified, and having put the staff in motion to prepare the material for that, I would have some hesita-tion about now, you see, expanding into a new area, even though that -- even though that new area might be a perfectly reasonable one to be contemplated for generic study and proceeding at some point.
You know, aside from whether it is or is not reasonable and practical to consider the economic costs on a generic basis, there's the further question:
- Well, suppose you decided, you know, yeah, we recognize these things about variability, but neve~theless you can make a reasonable crack at it -- there's still a question,whether we ought to hang it into S-3.
My own impression is that it would be-~ Well, I expect it would send the staff back for a fairly 1 substantial
jwb 2 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 25
~iece of preparation, I would guess, to be on a firm footing from the standpoint of the staff's testimony.
I think I'd prefer not to do it.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
The countervailing consideration, I suppose, would be that we would have a lot of the players -- maybe not all of them interested in doing that.
who would be CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Well, that's another considera-tion.
We've started down one track, and if we now broaden it, why it's in some ways a little unfair to the people who in the beginning might have said "well, I would come in if it were broader, but I won't this way."
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
And I assume we'll have a chance to think about it a little more.
One thought that occurs to me is the possibility I
of a sort of "phase I, phase II" exercise; because everyone is all geared up to look at the subject now there may be something to be said for trying to deal with it all at once, but let me not pursue that more right now.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I think it would be useful, before we went too far, to have some, you know, probings and I
understand what all might be involved at least ~rom the staff's standpoint, in feeling that they were on firm grounds to deal.with it.
I I must say, the proposed-motion that Leo has
jwb 3 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 26 outliried seems to me to have considerable merit.
+/- think the sort of decision that the Board has made -- at least my own view is that the decision the Board has made on the economic feasibility question is a reasonable one.
If there are models for dealing with certain things in the proceeding, I suppose I could come: in and 9ay:
Now, I have this model, and you put bad stuff in here and good stuff comes*out here, and the question is:
How do you do that?
They say:
Well, it's magic.
Well, I would think the Board would say "nons~nse~
that',s not feasible, and practical," and throw it out, you know.
In a sense, the economic feasibility is the same thing.
As I say, if it costs staggering would cost, ~learly, staggering amounts to do some step, then that's not a practical thing to appear in the table.
So, I agree with their conclusion and this motion wou1d support that.
With regard to the other things, the motion gives the Board -- recognizes that the Board has certain steps underway, and that clarification may well result from those steps, I
and that there isn't a particular need for the Commission to go stomping into the proceeding, but reserves t~e question, of doing so later if it feels necessary.
I I think, on ba-lance, it's a f aj,rly, you know, 'sort of
JWB 4 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 27 a prudent and conservative sort of step.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
You're talking about the draft order?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Could I ask two or three specific questions about the order itself, which otherwise, it seems to me, is well drafted?
I still don't see why, in the sort of preambular paragraph of that order, we cofildn't in a sentence express what we have all agreed indeed is the posture of the S-3 hearing -- that is, it is not nor was it ever intended as a generic rule making, encompassing a full economic analysis, which would be at least that much of a signal to all parties.
It would seem to me that that would be a useful thing, because my sensing of what the states were suggesting is that's what they were really talking about.
And we ought to at least disabuse them of that notion.
Because right now, without that kind of guidance, I ask what it means when we go over to the other side, you see, and talk about a "Board Order," which I'll come back to, and anticipating this order will contain material to ciarify whether the states concerned do in fact present a case or an occasion for our intervention,*we decline now to act on their motion.
If my supposition about what's in the mind of the
jwb 5 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 28 states is correct, this sort of signals that in fact we may think they're right.
Well, to that extent, we don't think they're right; isn't that correct?
MR. EILPERIN:
That's right.
MR. SLAGGIE:
I think we do not think they are right; that this should be done in Table S-3.
thing like add a --
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
But, you know, what I --
MR. SLAGGIE:
But whether generically COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
we ought to say some-MR. EILPERIN:
I think, at that point, we could COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay?
MR. MURRAY:
I might point out that the States' motion.,:. does in fact state that it.' s legally required that the S-3 table contain under the NEPA -- contain a disc~ssion of economics.
motion.
that point.
problem.
MR. SLAGGIE:
The States' motion, you say?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, on page 8 of the States' MR. EILPERIN:
I think we can add a sentence at COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
To take care of that 7
jwb 6 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 29 MR. EILPERIN:
Sure.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
There's a -- I assume, in the sentence, we will note that the Board has requested, on page 2 of the order, you will want to change that, obviously, just editorially to take account of the fact that, since this was drafted, the material actually has been submitted.
Could I go down a little bit farther and look at the sentence that says:
"The Board has indicated that, following review of this material, it expects to issue an order scheduling further proceedings regarding economic questions."
Now, does that mean what it seems to mean?
That in fact the Board_ will issue an order calling additional hearings to discuss that subject?
MR. MURRAY:
Yes, sir.
MR. EILPERIN:
In other words, it won't -- In other words, the question of economic feasibility will not be ended simply by the staff's submission.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, may I then suggest that the word "~uestions" should be supplanted by the word "feasibility"?
of the p~ge MR. EILPERIN:
I've lost you on the page.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's right in the center page' 2 -- "The Board -has indicated that,
jwb 7 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 30 -
31 following review of this material" MR. EILPERIN:
Right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
--"it expects to issue an order scheduling further proceedings regarding" MR. EILPERIN:
-- economic feasibility.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
"'"- "economic feasibility."'
Because ~economic questions" goes beyond that; right?
MR. EILPERIN:
Right.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Okay?
MR. EILPERIN:
That's fine.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
All right.
And one more small matter, which is the last sentence of the order, which begins at the very bottom of the page::
"The Commission notes that inclusion of the material in the record of this proceeding is not necessarily indicative of the scope of the final rule" -- Now I don't know what that's intended to imply, but CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I hope it doesn't imply that we might write a rule which goes outside material placed in the record of the proceeding.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Do we need this sentence at all?
MR. EILPERIN:
I guess we don't.
But what we were trying, perhaps, to cryptically get across there was the fact that the Board has allowed in some economic
jwb 8 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13
-14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 32 testimony does not mean that the scope of the S-3 proceeding must be expanded to publish a rule based on economic values.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I like that statement.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
That's comforting.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I like that statement better than this one.
(Laughter.)
MR. EILPERIN:
It's too cryptic.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Steve, I remember within the year promising to stick to what's on the record before the Commission in making these decisions.
I don't want, so soon, to be --
MR. MURRAY:
In rule makings, Mr. Chairman, you*
shouldn't feel yourself so bound.
MR. EILPERIN:
That's true.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would suggest only that either we be must more precise about what the sentence means, or just drop it off.
out.
MR. EILPERIN:
Yes, we can knock this sentence CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Vic, comments?
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
No.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Peter, comments?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
No -- I would like to chew a little more on wnat I have learned in the last half hour
\\
V jwb 9 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
-23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 or so, but I have no.further comments now.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I recommend that COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
One question.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Yes, sir.
33 COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
"Environmental surveys,"
is that something:.other people do, too?
Or is that something that we devised for these circumstances?
MR. MURRAY:
I am not sure I can answer that question, Commissioner Gilinsky.
It's my understanding that we, of course, did devise this.
The court explicitly took recognition, in the Vermont Yankee decision, that this was a "survey," and not an impact statement.
- Iri the oft-quoted language which is quoted before you, they found that generally the process worked well.
It was just in the areas of the back end that they felt were inadequately justified.
So, I'm not familiar, really, with what other agencies might do in the survey area, but I do know that this one has some sort of affirmation.
MR. EILPERIN:
The court thought it was a sensible idea, when you have a generic problem, to handle it with a rule; and that environmental -- quanitification of environmental values was not something wholly distinct from other types of rules -- it was a reasonable way of handling it.
jwb 10 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 34 Could I suggest, then, that the counsel's office redraft?
Commissioner Kennedy's been very helpful about the drafting here, and let us see a proposed order.
Now, could I -- because on other occasions sometimes I find -- some time goes by, and I find myself circulating through the halls hunting for Commissioners whom I can corner on these subjects.
What sort of time restraints do we have here, please?
MR. EILPERIN:
Well, it would be useful if the Commission's order came down before the Board's order of clarification --
record.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Which is anticipated, when?
MR. EILPERIN:
Do you have any ideas, Jim?
MR. MURRAY:
I only deal with that Board on the (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Mr. Chairman, may I suggest MR. EILPERIN:
I am told by Leo that it may come down early next week.
I don't see any problem with us circulating an order sometime tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
May I suggest, Mr.
Chairman, that if we're so inclined -- as I certainly would be -- to vote approval of the order, subject to -- subject at this time to approval of final language changes, as
jwb 11 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc:.
25 35 redrafted by the counsel?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Would that be agreeable?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Well, one of the things I want to think a little more about -- maybe -- I don't know if we can take the time to go into it now.
It's just exactly what are we gaining by issuing an order now, instead of waiting until after -- instead of simply waiting?
MR. SLAGGIE:
We do have the economic feasibility question, which I do think we ought*to have a prompt response to their motions asking the Commission to take "economic feasibility" out; and I think we ought to make plain, as soon as possible, that reconomic feasibility" is in, and that the tack the Hearing Board has apparently been sailing is all right with us.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
I would agree.
On the other end of the spectrum, we ought to make clear to all parties that we are not talking about a full economic analysis, in a generic sense, which Table* S-3, up until now,,
has never contemplated.
Whether in the future we look at that question as a generic rule making matter is a different question.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Yes, and I think I agree with the immediate result of what you're saying.
I'm not sure how. I would want to say it, at this point in time, as to whether we ought' to approach the.subject generically in
jwb 12 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 36 the future, and that's the only thing I am having difficulty with now.
I have no difficulty with the first half of what they have just outlined at all and can certainly clear that off quickly; and it's possible that, on looking at the draft, I can accommodate my concerns on the second half, as well.
- COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Well, why don't we circulate a draft, and if we have got the draft we ought to be able to meet together five minutes, hopefully, to affirm it or further amend it, or whatever~
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Let's see.
We are going t.o meet tomorrow afternoon.
There will be an affirmation session -- a brief one -- but that seems *awfully pressed for time, just from this afternoon until tomorrow morning.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
It's only a page, a page and a half, and we already have read it.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If it were the only item of business in counsel's office, or any of our offices, why it would be a breeze.
But I'm afraid that's not quite the case.
I am wondering if that isn't pressing a little hard.
MR. EILPERIN:
I see no reason why we can't get something to you tomorrow morning. -That won't be a problem
jwb 13 l
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 37 for us.
What the Commission's scheduling is is another*
matter.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
Do you know whether you're likely to have time to talk to counsel?
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
I will try.
I would hesitate to guarantee it, but I will try.
I won't be here Friday.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
That was something I was going to ask you*.
Well, let's see if it doesn't come out all right by tomorrow afternoon, and then we can affirm it then.
I note that next week we will be meeting on Tuesday and Thursday.
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Procedurally, if we can continue this meeting until tomorrow afternoon, are we then covered for Sunshine Act purposes?
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
If we need discussion tomorrow, then I think we would have to vote a short-notice meeting.
It would be an open meeting, surely, but we would have to vote for short notice.
If it's an affirmation item, I guess we would still have to vote it as an affirmation item.
MR. EILPERIN:
I can read the Cornmission,~.now, the suggested changes.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
I'll tell you what.
Why don't we vote it on to tomorrow afternoon!s agenda.
That's at
jwb 14 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Ace-Federal Reporters, Inc.
25 38 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> notice.
It's not very satisfactory, but i.i t' s betb~r than none.
COMMISSIONER KENNEDY:
Aye..
COMMISSIONER BRADFORD:
Especially since most of the people interested in the problem have had a chance --
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
May very well be here.
I ask for your votes to put it on the agenda.
COMMISSIONER GILINSKY:
Aye.
CHAIRMAN HENDRIE:
So ordered, just before the affirmation item, Sam, and then we'll see whether there's a discussion meeting or whether it's become an affirmation item by that time, and cross our fingers.
I will meet with -- I will be meeting in the morning back down on the Hill, but there seems to be no need for the rest of you to come, although I cordially invite each and every one of you to join me and the other members.
(Whereupon, at 4:45 p.m., the hearing was adjourned. )